Mark Carter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 13 2017, 6:49 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Mark Carter, December 13, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1707-CR-1543
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Patrick Murphy,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1612-F6-46917
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 1 of 6
[1] Mark Carter appeals his convictions for Class A Misdemeanor Battery 1 and
Class A Misdemeanor Domestic Battery,2 arguing that the evidence is
insufficient. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] In November 2016, Carter and Kimberly Brown had been dating on and off for
approximately two years and had lived together in Indianapolis for four or five
months. Brown had a key to the house and had mail delivered to that address.
Although she did not pay rent, she engaged in drug deals for Carter, both
delivering drugs and collecting payment on his behalf.
[3] On November 22, 2016, Brown returned to the house after delivering drugs for
Carter. She found Carter in the bedroom; he became angry because Brown
“was a little short on the drugs[.]” Tr. p. 20. Carter got “very, very upset” and
insisted that Brown either sit on the bed or in a nearby chair. Id. at 13. Brown
got onto the bed and made a comment to Carter, angering him and leading to
him punching her in the back of her head, causing pain and swelling. He then
began choking her and threatened to choke her with a belt and to hit her with a
hammer. Brown attempted to leave the house but Carter tried to keep her
there, pulling her back inside the house as she tried to exit.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.
2
I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[4] Around this time, Indianapolis Police Officer Marlon Minor was dispatched to
the domestic disturbance. When he arrived, he saw Carter and Brown
screaming at each other and observed red marks on Brown’s chest, a scratch on
Brown’s right arm, and a bruise on the back of one of her arms; he also noticed
that her hand was bleeding. Photographs of Brown show blood on her lip and
hand, scratches on her neck and hand, and a bruise on her arm. Officer Minor
observed no visible injuries to Carter.
[5] On December 7, 2016, the State charged Carter with Level 6 felony
intimidation, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery. At Carter’s bench trial, which took place on March 20 and
April 10, 2017, Carter claimed that he acted in self-defense during the
altercation. At the close of the trial, the trial court found him not guilty of
intimidation and guilty of battery and domestic battery. On April 10, 2017, the
trial court sentenced Carter to concurrent one-year terms for each conviction,
fully suspended to probation. Carter now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Carter argues that the evidence does not support his convictions for Class A
misdemeanor battery or Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. When
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will consider only the evidence
and reasonable inferences that support the conviction. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d
171, 174 (Ind. 2011). We will affirm if, based on the evidence and inferences, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 3 of 6
reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009).
[7] To convict Carter of Class A misdemeanor battery, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he touched Brown in a rude, insolent, or
angry manner, resulting in bodily injury. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.
[8] Carter’s sole argument with respect to his battery conviction is that the State
failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. To raise a successful self-defense claim,
a defendant must show that he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be;
(2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and
(3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm or had a reasonable
belief that force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry of or
attack on his dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. Ind. Code § 35-41-
3-2(d); Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). When a claim of self-
defense is raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of
negating at least one of the necessary elements. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. If a
defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no
reasonable person could say that the State negated self-defense beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at 800-01.
[9] Carter directs our attention to his testimony, in which he stated that Brown did
not live in his home, that he wanted her to leave his home but she refused, and
that she attacked him first. Brown, however, testified that Carter was the initial
aggressor, punching her in the head and giving her “a big ole’ knot on the back
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 4 of 6
of [her] head . . .” Tr. p. 13-14, 24. Carter then choked Brown and tried to
prevent her from leaving the house. Brown’s testimony was corroborated by
Officer Minor’s observations at the scene as well as photographs of the injuries
she sustained. This evidence is sufficient both to rebut Carter’s claim of self-
defense and to support the Class A misdemeanor battery conviction. See, e.g.,
Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that an
initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense unless he withdrew from the
encounter and communicated his intent to do so to the other person). Carter’s
claims to the contrary are simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which
we decline to do.
[10] To convict Carter of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, the State was
required to prove that Brown was his family or household member and that he
touched her in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3. Carter
argues that the evidence does not establish that Brown is his family or
household member. “Family or household member” includes people who are
“dating or [have] dated” and people who are or were “engaged in a sexual
relationship[.]” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-128(a). Carter himself testified that he
and Brown were engaged in a sexual relationship. Tr. p. 56; see also Appellant’s
Br. p. 11 (noting that Carter’s relationship with Brown “was one of drugs and
sex”). Additionally, Brown testified that they had been dating for two years
and were engaged in a sexual relationship. Tr. p. 12-13, 21. This evidence is
sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that Brown is Carter’s family or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 5 of 6
household member and, consequently, to support Carter’s Class A
misdemeanor domestic battery conviction.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1707-CR-1543 | December 13, 2017 Page 6 of 6